Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which political parties made representations to them concerning the issues in the proposed Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill, announced by the Lord President on 31 January.

Baroness Amos: The Minister of State, John Spellar, met separately with the Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, Sinn Fein, the Alliance Party, the Progressive Unionist Party and the UK Unionist Party to discuss the future of electoral registration in Northern Ireland. These meetings took place in November 2004.

Africa: G8 Aid

Lord Owen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	(a) how much aid they and the other G8 countries have provided to Africa as a percentage of gross domestic product over the past 30 years; and (b) how this compares to the total overseas aid budget for these years.

Baroness Amos: The information requested is given in the tables below. Note that:
	Russia is not included as it is not a (Development Assistance Committee) DAC donor;
	official development assistance (ODA) is usually given as percentage of gross national income (GNI) in line with the UN target
	the amounts to Africa do not include contributions channelled through multilateral organisations, although the latter are included in the total in Table B.
	
		Table A
		
			 Bilateral net ODA to Africa as percentage of gross national income (GNI) 
			  Canada France Germany Italy Japan UK USA 
			 1974 0.11 0.25 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.02 
			 1975 0.13 0.25 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 
			 1976 0.11 0.22 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.03 
			 1977 0.08 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.04 
			 1978 0.11 0.21 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.05 
			 1979 0.10 0.20 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.05 
			 1980 0.10 0.21 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.06 
			 1981 0.09 0.23 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.06 
			 1982 0.11 0.26 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.05 
			 1983 0.09 0.24 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.06 
			 1984 0.12 0.27 0.12 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.06 
			 1985 0.11 0.28 0.12 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.07 
			 1986 0.09 0.26 0.11 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.05 
			 1987 0.10 0.26 0.10 0.18 0.03 0.06 0.04 
			 1988 0.10 0.26 0.11 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.04 
			 1989 0.10 0.28 0.11 0.14 0.04 0.08 0.04 
			 1990 0.09 0.31 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.06 
			 1991 0.09 0.30 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.07 
			 1992 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.05 
			 1993 0.07 0.30 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.04 
			 1994 0.06 0.30 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.04 
			 1995 0.07 0.24 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.03 
			 1996 0.07 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 
			 1997 0.05 0.20 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 
			 1998 0.06 0.16 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.02 
			 1999 0.04 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 
			 2000 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.02 
			 2001 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.02 
			 2002 0.05 0.18 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.03 
			 2003 0.06 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.05 
		
	
	
		Table B
		
			 Bilateral net ODA to Africa as percentage of total net ODA 
			  Canada France Germany Italy Japan UK USA 
			 1974 24.0 55.9 22.1 8.4 4.1 16.7 7.6 
			 1975 24.4 56.8 25.6 20.3 9.6 15.4 7.5 
			 1976 23.6 55.2 26.3 19.2 7.3 17.1 11.9 
			 1977 16.0 52.7 25.5 11.6 10.8 13.9 15.5 
			 1978 20.5 53.6 28.4 4.9 12.8 16.5 17.6 
			 1979 20.4 46.4 26.1 7.4 13.3 18.7 23.4 
			 1980 22.5 47.8 23.2 8.5 11.1 25.6 21.1 
			 1981 21.4 44.8 22.9 14.4 10.0 20.6 28.5 
			 1982 27.6 46.2 28.7 22.4 12.2 20.3 20.0 
			 1983 19.8 43.1 26.2 31.5 9.7 18.5 23.0 
			 1984 23.6 43.8 27.5 40.0 8.8 18.6 25.6 
			 1985 22.6 44.9 26.4 49.1 10.1 21.5 30.4 
			 1986 18.6 45.7 25.1 43.0 10.5 19.0 22.7 
			 1987 21.5 43.7 26.5 51.0 9.6 21.2 22.2 
			 1988 20.2 44.9 26.9 50.6 12.9 24.1 17.1 
			 1989 22.2 46.7 27.1 33.5 13.5 27.0 24.1 
			 1990 20.2 51.5 28.9 38.1 11.8 21.7 31.0 
			 1991 20.2 49.2 24.4 27.6 15.0 24.6 36.1 
			 1992 20.8 47.4 28.3 29.3 9.3 22.6 25.6 
			 1993 16.4 47.6 21.6 26.2 11.5 17.0 24.7 
			 1994 14.7 47.0 22.1 39.9 10.6 20.5 25.4 
			 1995 18.5 43.1 20.1 29.5 11.1 19.1 25.1 
			 1996 23.2 44.6 21.7 16.2 14.1 20.1 17.6 
			 1997 13.8 44.5 23.8 23.7 10.3 19.0 27.4 
			 1998 19.7 40.4 20.0 19.7 10.4 21.8 21.5 
			 1999 15.4 36.8 19.3 13.5 10.0 23.5 21.5 
			 2000 12.5 44.1 17.3 18.3 9.1 25.6 21.2 
			 2001 14.2 36.5 16.6 12.0 11.1 26.3 17.3 
			 2002 19.4 47.5 19.0 34.8 7.5 21.3 24.0 
			 2003 25.4 49.5 30.4 30.6 7.9 24.0 31.2

Future Aircraft Carrier

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 28 February (WA 6) on the aircraft carrier project:
	(a) how many individuals have been contributed by each of the participants in the alliance to the integrated team responsible for managing and executing the future aircraft carrier project;
	(b) where that team is located;
	(c) who are the members of the Alliance Management Board;
	(d) which participant each represents;
	(e) when the management board most recently met; and
	(f) when it is next due to meet.

Lord Bach: The structure and content of the aircraft carrier alliance integrated team is dependent on the stage of the project, the skills required and the resources available from the alliance participants. Around 40 companies have also, at differing times, been involved in supplying personnel into the project team. In terms of the industrial alliance participants, currently BAe Systems provides around 60 to 65 core personnel, Thales UK around 40 to 45 core personnel, and KBR UK around 15 to 20 personnel. The numbers and distribution between alliance participants will evolve and change over the life of the project. The team is currently located across three sites in the Bristol area.
	Membership of the Alliance Management Board (AMB) currently consists of: the MoD's CVF IPT Leader; the managing director BAe Systems CVF; the managing director Thales Naval Ltd; and the director KBR Maritime Operations. The AMB meets on a regular basis as part of routine business.

Future Aircraft Carrier

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 28 February (WA 6), whether any drafts have yet been prepared and considered of:
	(a) the alliance agreement; and
	(b) the works contracts
	for the future aircraft carrier project.

Lord Bach: Drafts of the alliance agreement and works contracts for the demonstration and manufacture phases of the future aircraft carrier project continue to be developed in preparation for the main investment decision, currently targeted for the latter half of 2005.

Gulf War Illnesses

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 8 March (WA 74), whether they will provide a breakdown of the estimate of the £25,000 cost of providing information on the legal and other costs incurred in contesting war pension claims from veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict.

Lord Bach: There have been 1,349 appeals as at December 2004 by veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict for various claimed medical conditions. Each case would have to be examined to try to determine the cost of processing the appeal.
	On the broad assumption that each case would involve at least two hours of Veterans Agency staff effort at administrative officer level and applying the accepted hourly rate of £10.25, the overall cost of providing such information would be in excess of £25,000.

Gulf War Illnesses

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 8 March (WA 74), what figure would have represented a proportionate cost of providing information on the legal and other costs incurred in contesting war pension claims from veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict.

Lord Bach: HM Treasury has set a guideline figure of £600 as one that would represent a proportionate cost for providing a full reply. Providing the information on costs incurred in contesting war pension claims from veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict involved costs far in excess of this figure.

Armed Forces: Discipline

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is now too late for the United Kingdom to make a reservation under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the United Kingdom system of military discipline.

Lord Bach: Even if a reservation were possible, the Government do not believe it is desirable. In our view, the service disciplinary system is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Bach on 27 January (WS 58) on "Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents", whether they were then aware that the United States Government Accountability Office had concluded that, given the "uncertainties in source term data and divergences in model results, the United States Department of Defense cannot determine, or estimate with any degree of certainty, plume size and path, or who was or was not exposed".

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence is aware of the US Government Accountability Office's report and its conclusions. The Ministry of Defence recognises that, given the uncertainty surrounding the source term data, it is not possible to calculate definitively the exposure risk to personnel and has referred to this issue when drawing its own conclusions.

Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Bach on 27 January (WS 58) on "Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents", whether the Ministry of Defence was then aware of the results of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's work on modelling the Khamisyiah detonation; and whether they plan to respond, as those results could affect British troops involved in the 1990–91 Gulf war.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence assessment of the events at Khamisiyah is based upon information documented within the 2002 Khamisiyah modelling report published by the US Department of Defense (DoD). The results of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory model were detailed within the DoD report but were excluded from the final composite. The reasons for this are detailed within paragraph 19 of the recent Ministry of Defence publication Review of Modelling of the Demolitions at Khamisiyah in March 1991 and Implications for UK Personnel which was published on 27 January 2005.
	It remains this Government's belief that, irrespective of the potential area of exposure, the levels of sarin and cyclosarin released would have been too low to induce any health effects.

Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Bach on 27 January (WS 58) on "Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents", what information they have on the amount of sarin and cyclosarin stored at sites destroyed by the Khamisyiah detonation.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence assessment of the events at Khamisiyah is based upon intelligence documented within the 2002 Khamisiyah modelling report published by the US Department of Defense.

Astute Class Submarines

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Astute class submarines they plan to procure.

Lord Bach: There are three Astute class submarines currently on order with BAe Systems. Orders for the procurement of further Astute boats are being considered and announcements will be made at the appropriate time.

Armed Forces: Compliance with International Humanitarian Law

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What training, guidance and instructions have been given to members of Her Majesty's armed services during the past four years regarding compliance with the obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

Lord Bach: Obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by international humanitarian law are covered within Her Majesty's Armed Forces through instruction and training in the Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC). All new entrants to the Armed Forces, of all ranks, receive training on LoAC during initial training and specialist training courses. Such training has been delivered throughout the past four years. On entry into productive service Army and Royal Marines personnel renew this training annually as part of their individual training directives.
	Prior to deployment to an operational theatre, all personnel receive pre-deployment training (PDT), either collectively or as individuals. Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel receive specific training on LoAC during PDT as, unlike their Army and Royal Marine counterparts, they do not receive such training on an annual basis. All personnel receive an additional theatre-specific operational law brief and cultural awareness training as part of PDT.
	In addition, officers receive enhanced packages during their career development and through attendance at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, where they receive education on the analysis of international law, the role of ethics and their impact on military operations.
	International human rights law is not taught as a subject in its own right to service personnel. However, all service personnel are subject to their respective service disciplinary codes and will be dealt with by their commanding officers or (depending on the gravity of the offences) by courts martial for breaches overseas of service discipline or the commission of criminal law offences contrary to the law of England and Wales. The object of service disciplinary law has always been to maintain discipline within the Armed Forces and thereby both to guarantee respect from the local population overseas for the behaviour of service personnel and to help maintain operational effectiveness.
	Service personnel receive annual common core skills training, part of which relates to live armed guarding duties in peacetime within the United Kingdom. The law of self-defence is an essential part of that training and seeks to impart the basic principle that only reasonable and proportionate force may be used where a necessity of defence arises. The teaching, which is given partly by video and partly by instructors, is in line with Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and supporting case law. Section 3 comprises the basis for the use of force in most peace-keeping operations conducted by HM forces overseas.

Olympic Games 2012: London Bid

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 24 February (WA 230) and 10 March (WA 89–90), what other differing criteria or errors in the bid document for the 2012 Olympic Games have come to light, as well as the one referred to; and, in the light of the decision not to draw the highlighted mistake to the attention of the International Olympic Committee Evaluation Commission, to what address this information should be sent, so that they could be made aware of it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As explained to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling in my original Answer on 3 February (WA 62), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not set criteria for the definition of "dignitaries and VIPs" for inclusion in table 12.14 of the candidate file. We do not, therefore, believe any mistake to have been made in the compilation of that table which would need to be drawn to the attention of the IOC. The recent visit to London of the IOC evaluation team provided them with the opportunity to raise any questions they may have had concerning the information in table 12.14 and the rest of the candidate file.

Water Mergers

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to redraft paragraphs 35(2) and (3) of the Water Mergers (Modification of Enactments) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3202) in order to achieve greater clarity of purpose.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There are no plans to amend these regulations. Paragraph 11 of the Water Mergers (Modification of Enactments) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3202), inserted new Sections 35(2) and (3) into the Water Industry Act 1991. These have the effect that a two-thirds majority of members of the group of the Competition Commission considering a water merger is required in order for the group to conclude that a water merger has taken place, and that an adverse finding should be made.
	These provisions mirror the provisions for non-water mergers, as set out in paragraph 20(3) of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.

Water Mergers

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the turnover of water companies for the purposes of the Enterprise Act 2002 (Merger Fees and Determination of Turnover) (Amendment) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/3204) includes their non-water related activities.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No. Mergers fees are calculated in accordance with the Enterprise Act 2002 (Merger Fees and Determination of Turnover) Order 2003. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Merger Fees and Determination of Turnover) (Amendment) Order 2004 amends this order for mergers between water companies (inter alia) by providing that the turnover of a water enterprise for the purposes of Article 5(5) is calculated in accordance with the Water Mergers (Determination of Turnover) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3206). These regulations provide that the turnover of a water enterprise is limited to the amounts derived from the sale of products and the provision of services falling within its appointed business to businesses or consumers in England and Wales after deduction of sales rebates, value added tax and other taxes directly related to turnover. Appointed business for these purposes means the business of carrying out the activities which are necessary for a water enterprise to fulfil its functions as a relevant undertaker as defined in the Water Industry Act 1991. A relevant undertaker means a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker and its functions are defined in Section 219 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

Recreational Craft Regulations

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What changes will be made as a consequence of paragraph 2(c) of the Recreational Craft (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3201).

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No substantive change will be made, only a typographical correction.
	The amendment regulations were made to correct some errors in the Recreational Craft Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1464); those regulations continue the implementation of Directive 94/25/EC on recreational craft and transpose the amending Directive 2003/44/EC. At the same time as correcting other more significant errors in those regulations, it was decided also to amend the incorrect references to Annexe I, which should have been written using Roman numeral "I" (to properly reflect the directives) instead of the Arabic numeral "1" which was used in the Recreational Craft Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1464). Accordingly, Regulation 2(c) does not affect the intent of the principal regulations in any material way.

End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To whom are the responsibilities passed under the End-of-Life Vehicles (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/263) if the producer goes out of business or leaves the United Kingdom.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Under the regulations, responsibility for taking back, treating and recycling end-of-life vehicles may pass to a producer taking over the business, in whole or in part, or may be ascribed to another producer by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, if she has grounds for doing so, or form part of a collective agreement she may negotiate with producers to deal with so-called "orphan" vehicles. Authorised treatment facilities may also choose to accept end-of-life vehicles for which they have no responsibility, on a commercial basis.

Stonehenge Improvement Scheme

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 8 February (WA 112), whether when stating that "there was no target date set for receipt of the inspector's report" on the A303 Stonehenge inquiry, Lord Davies of Oldham was aware that the inspector had announced at the end of the inquiry on 11 May 2004 a target date of the week commencing 6 September 2004; and what unanticipated "complexity" in this planning matter is responsible for a delivery time of at least eight rather than four months.

Lord Davies of Oldham: There is no formal target date set for receipt of an inspector's report on highway projects, other than the general guidelines set down in the department's service level agreement with the Planning Inspectorate. Inspectors have sometimes given an indication of the date by when they aim to complete their report, which is what happened in this case.
	The inspector's report on the A303 Stonehenge inquiry was received on 31 January 2005 and is currently being considered by the Secretary of State; it would not be appropriate to give any details of its contents.

Railways: South-west Regional Planning Assessment

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 1 March (WA 22), whether rail users will be consulted during the Strategic Rail Authority's forthcoming regional planning assessment for the south-west region; and when that assessment will be published.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Local and regional stakeholders will be involved in the development of the regional planning assessment (RPA). The core reference group will include county councils, unitary authorities and the Rail Passengers Council (RPC). Individual rail travellers will not be consulted but the RPC may put forward a digest of their views. The south-west RPA is due to be published in winter 2005.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Road-building Programme

Lord Bridges: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the net effect of their road-building programme on their commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is estimated that the Highways Agency's road-building programme, consistent with the Future of Transport White Paper, will increase CO2 emissions in England by around 0.1 MtC per year in 2010. This represents an increase in total road transport CO2 emissions of less than 0.5 per cent. Other transport policies, such as sustainable distribution policies which improve HGV fuel efficiency, investment in public transport and smart measures, are forecast to reduce CO2 emissions by around 1.2 MtC per year in 2010.

Traffic Commissioners

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a traffic commissioner can use the services of the Treasury Solicitor's Department; and, if so, under what circumstances.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Traffic commissioners are free to instruct whichever solicitors they wish should proceedings be brought against them. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 does not prevent the Treasury Solicitor's Department from representing traffic commissioners.
	As a matter of public policy, the Department of Transport will normally arrange for the Treasury Solicitor's Department to represent traffic commissioners in proceedings. The department sponsors the commissioners and the commissioners act under the general direction of the Secretary of State for Transport, although they are independent in carrying out their statutory functions. The Treasury Solicitor would not act on behalf of a traffic commissioner in any case where a conflict of interest arose.

Traffic Commissioners

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What duties traffic commissioners have as:
	(a) licensing authorities; and
	(b) one person tribunals.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Traffic commissioners are responsible for administering the licensing systems for operators of large goods vehicles and public service vehicles under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. They are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport under Section 4(2) of the 1981 Act but are statutorily independent. They act in a quasi-judicial capacity and, under the supervision of the Council of Tribunals, they act as single person tribunals when conducting public inquiries on licence applications or an existing licence holder's fitness to hold a licence. Decisions relating to operators' licences are solely a matter for the traffic commissioners. A person who seeks redress against a commissioner's decision may appeal to the Transport Tribunal or the courts.

Traffic Commissioners

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether traffic commissioners have powers, discretionary or not, to change or amend some or all of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, with particular regard to Schedule 3.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Traffic commissioners have the responsibility for administering the goods vehicle operator licensing system set out in the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. They do not have powers to amend the provisions of the Act but they are responsible for interpreting the Act's provisions and, in particular, for deciding whether in individual cases the eligibility criteria for a licence set out in Schedule 3 to the Act have been met. A person who is aggrieved by a commissioner's decision has the right of appeal to the Transport Tribunal and the courts.

Lord Birt

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 February (WA 211), why the public interest in withholding the dates of meetings between the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, the Lord Birt and
	(a) the Prime Minister;
	(b) the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and
	(c) the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
	outweighs the public interest in releasing it; and whether the Secretary of the Cabinet was consulted on the decision.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Lord Birt is an unpaid strategy adviser to the Prime Minister. He provides private internal advice to the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues. His advice is not made public as to do so could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.
	It is for Ministers to take the decision on the content of Answers to Parliamentary Questions.